Pattern languages may be able to “implement” action logics because they are quite similar, but pattern languages are much more usable. Similarly, action logics may be usable as formal systems for pattern languages.
Action logics (such as my ALX3d) are based on state transitions executed by actions.
Similarly, a pattern describes a problem, a solution, and a context [AIS77].
The problem describes the inadequacy of the current state. As such, it includes a partial description of the current state, and what would be better about the desired state.
Example: A pattern problem might read “You need to mix ingredients….”.
The context of the pattern describes other pertinent information about the current state. This is augmented by drivers/forces in the pattern.
The pattern's solution part includes how to reach the desired state.
The pattern's consequences include predictive information of what the current state will be like if you pursue the action(s) recommended in the pattern.
Therefore: it appears that there is some consistency between action logics and pattern languages.
But: Should pattern language formats be changed to be more consistent with action logic organization?